Ancillary documents for NIH grant applications: The pages beyond the science.

Preparing a grant proposal is no small feat, especially for research (R-series) grants from the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, and as such, procuring a research grant from the National Institutes of Health is one of the ultimate benchmarks of success for a surgeon-scientist. Most investigators are familiar with the page limits for most R-series grants (12 pages for an R01 and 6 pages for an R21), with the addition of a single page allotted for the specific aims. Interestingly, despite the usual focus on the aforementioned research section, the rest of the application can routinely consist of an additional 100 to 150 pages, which means that pages allotted for the specific aims and research strategy represent only 10% of the complete application package. For busy surgeons, it is this abundance of ancillary documentation that can make preparing a research grant particularly onerous. Fortunately, for some, support exists within the department to help prepare much of this documentation by drawing from previous sources, templates, and boilerplate language that has been developed. Although these resources can significantly reduce the burden on individual investigators, there is a danger of leaning on generalized templates that can dilute the message of the overall grant proposal and introduce extraneous or incorrect information that can ultimately impact the cohesiveness and ultimately the competitiveness of the grant. The focus of this article is to educate surgeon-scientists regarding the purpose and importance of the ancillary information required for National Institutes of Health research grants and how to make the most of institutional resources while tailoring these materials to create a cohesive, competitive grant application.

Writing an effective National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget: How to get the money for your science.

In the scheme of developing an application for funding from any federal or foundation source, it is reasonable to place significant attention on the science. However, it is also imperative to remember that your budget is what will provide the resources to make sure you can complete your proposed investigations and, as such, deserves appropriate consideration. In the competitive arena of extramural funding, funding agencies are incentivized to ensure that the funds committed to research will yield maximum impact. A well-thought-out budget demonstrates to the funding agency 2 key factors: (1) that you understand the needs of the project and (2) you have a realistic expectation of the project costs. When these 2 things are communicated to the funding agency, in addition to the significance of your science, it is more likely that you will receive the budget you request. Herein, we put forth the fundamentals for preparing your budget and the nuances that may help you not only be in compliance but also improve your chances of success. This article will discuss issues to consider when designing a budget for large research grants, using the NIH R&R Budget as a prototype.

Top ten strategies to enhance grant-writing success.

Mastering the art of grant writing is one of the most essential skills to obtaining research funding. Given the importance of pursuing high-quality surgical research and supporting the academic goals of surgeon-scientists, ensuring that surgeons have the necessary skills to write effective and successful grants is of paramount importance. In this article, we present 10 strategies for composing a strong research grant application. These strategies apply to federal or nongovernmental funding agencies and are broadly relevant to basic, translational, and clinical investigators. We believe these recommendations can help surgeon-scientists be effective grant writers and compete successfully for research funding.

Climbing the grants ladder: Funding opportunities for surgeons.

Surgeon-scientists provide critical perspectives to academic medicine, both as lead scientists and as collaborators. Successfully applying for and obtaining funding is critical to sustain a research program; however, significant challenges exist. It is imperative to be aware of and consider all funding sources available to surgeons during the evolution of one's career. Additionally, a deep understanding of intramural and extramural nonfinancial resources, such as mentorship relationships, grant writing, and career development courses, and research infrastructure are required. In this article, we present a set of recommendations and guidelines for surgeon-scientists to leverage funding resources with active planning longitudinally during their careers to sustain their research programs and provide their unique perspectives on surgical disease to the scientific community.

Significance and innovation: cornerstones of a successful grant application.

The Significance and Innovation sections of a grant application are the cornerstones to a successful application. These sections emphasize the importance of the problem being studied, highlight what is novel about the proposal, and are an opportunity to get the reviewers excited about the application. To the novice grant writer, it may be difficult to know what "Significance" and "Innovation" are meant to describe. In this article we define the role of the Significance and Innovation sections and provide suggestions on what to include in each section and potential pitfalls to avoid.

An algorithmic approach to an impactful specific aims page.

The most vital part of a grant is the specific-aims section. As the leading section of the proposal, the specific-aims section serves as a 1-page synopsis that needs to gain the attention and interest of the reviewers. It must present a compelling case for the importance of the proposed work and provide a convincing rationale and evidence that you and your team are the best people to carry out the project. Developing the specific-aims page is usually the first stage of the grant writing process, as it provides an overview of the proposal and research directions. Furthermore, it can be instrumental in getting external feedback from program officers, collaborators, and others as the grant develops. The process of writing the Specific Aims page requires that one touch on each of the elements that comprise the scoring criteria of the proposal (eg, significance, innovation, investigator(s), approach, and environment) and succinctly introduce all the main topics that will be addressed in the application, but focus especially on the knowledge gap and the importance of filling it, the central hypothesis and the aims that will address it, and the overall impact of the work. This page sets a clear framework for writing the rest of the grant. In this article, we present a set of recommendations and guidelines on how to utilize an algorithmic approach to develop the specific-aims page, what elements to include, and how to maximize its value to create a competitive grant.

The Future of Basic Science in Academic Surgery: Identifying Barriers to Success for Surgeon-scientists.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the challenges confronting surgeons performing basic science research in today's academic surgery environment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple studies have identified challenges confronting surgeon-scientists and impacting their ability to be successful. Although these threats have been known for decades, the downward trend in the number of successful surgeon-scientists continues. Clinical demands, funding challenges, and other factors play important roles, but a rigorous analysis of academic surgeons and their experiences regarding these issues has not previously been performed. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to 2504 members of the Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons to determine factors impacting success. Survey results were subjected to statistical analyses. We also reviewed publicly available data regarding funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). RESULTS: NIH data revealed a 27% decline in the proportion of NIH funding to surgical departments relative to total NIH funding from 2007 to 2014. A total of 1033 (41%) members responded to our survey, making this the largest survey of academic surgeons to date. Surgeons most often cited the following factors as major impediments to pursuing basic investigation: pressure to be clinically productive, excessive administrative responsibilities, difficulty obtaining extramural funding, and desire for work-life balance. Surprisingly, a majority (68%) did not believe surgeons can be successful basic scientists in today's environment, including departmental leadership. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified important barriers that confront academic surgeons pursuing basic research and a perception that success in basic science may no longer be achievable. These barriers need to be addressed to ensure the continued development of future surgeon-scientists.